Colchester City Centre Transport Plan

The so called rapid transport system is nothing more than a bus in a bus lane. People will not use it, much like they don't use the park and ride, so it will become another white elephant wasting tax payers money. The proposals for cycle lanes are another joke that again will be an incredible waste of money, for the sake of 1 or 2 vocal cyclists.
The we made that survey also concluded the a majority were in favour of opening the High street to traffic and providing on-street parking. something CCC have deliberately overlooked in this plan!

Colchester cannot cope with the traffic as it currently is. By increasing public transport you could lessen this problem but then you want to build many houses within the city centre area - thus increasing the cars again.
Why?
The park and ride never worked before as too expensive. If you are intending to put in a better public transport system, it has to be affordable.
Unless you improve what the city centre offers, no-one will want to visit - this needs addressing.
Please please please focus on making the city centre a vibrant place with shops that are open.

I agree with the principle, but:
1) Colchester seems to forget that it has a large rural hinterland. Unless public transport is improved for those visiting their city, the plan is at odds with reality. Tiptree with a large population of over 10,000 does not have an adequate bus service to Colchester. Instead of large lumbering buses being used out of peak hours, a fleet of smaller vehicles that run more frequently is required. A town bus service of every 10 minutes is good. Outside the town every 20 minutes would be acceptable, but the best we have ever had is 30 minutes and it is now reduced to 60 minutes outside peak times. This is inconvenient for appointment times (you even need an appointment to do simple banking transactions). With an infrequent bus service this leads to killing time. What if it is raining? Can you afford to go to a cafe to kill time? Rural residents contribute to the facilities in Colchester, but an infrequent bus service in incompatible with busy lives. Tiptree has no bus service after early evening, so a trip to say the theatre is not possible without a car, and night taxi rates are not affordable for frequent trips.
2) The rural transport situation is always "going to be considered", but there is never much progress.
3) Commercial transport will never act for the good of the community, the benefits of better public transport are not counted in commercial terms, but we need it in social and environmental terms.
4) Very little is said about the disabled.
5) The elderly who do not qualify as disabled, also find walking a distance and scrambling on and off various vehicles and having to stand as there is insufficient seating and lack of consideration.
6) The Park & Ride in the north means travelling on the A12 to access it from the south / west. Not everyone likes driving on the A12. I can still cope with it, but many can't with the mix of fast traffic and congestion.

The elderly also experience difficulty in walking distances etc.

1. I strongly object to the implied proposal to close the Couch Street/ Balkerne Hill crossing, which has been widely criticised during recent consultations. It will substantially increase traffic congestion in the area and an enhanced surface crossing will be much less safe than the subway.

2. The subway closure is only required to accommodate an enhanced cycleway along Crouch Street which has also been widely condemned by local people in recent consultations due to its detrimental effect on the area.

3. I strongly object to the proposal for an enhanced cycleway along Crouch Street as it will lead to shop and business closures in this popular independent shopping area due to the proposed loss of adequate car parking. The proposal has already been widely condemned by local people during recent consultations and the ECC Consultants couldn’t even draw the plans correctly.

4. I strongly object to the proposal for segregated cycleways along Lexden Road, which is not wide enough to accommodate them together with the high pedestrian useage and school bus stops as well as other traffic. The proposals rely on reducing the general traffic Lane width such that all traffic will queue behind school buses at so called floating bus stops. During school times this will lead to massive congestion for all vehicles including buses, which stop for substantial periods. Also, children will have to cross ‘live’ cycleways putting them at risk of serious injury from cyclists. This safety hazard was highlighted recently in the press at a scheme in London, with another scheme in Hammersmith recording greatly increased congestion. This will worsen air quality in the area. The proposal was widely criticised by local people during the previous consultation.

5. The so called ‘Active Travel’ focus is entirely on those who are able and fit/healthy enough to walk and cycle. This group almost certainly coincides with the group most likely to respond to social media and web based consultations and hence, in my view are disproportionately represented in the Council consultation results. The biased results are then used in a way which disadvantages the more elderly residents and those with disabilities, both obvious and hidden. For example the recent consultation results used to support the most recent Crouch Street proposals was mostly via social media and from those outside the City Centre and Lexden areas. Hence they would be less affected than local people.

1. I find it ironic that the report notes that the City Centre now has to complete for retail with the Colchester Council owned, led and developed area at the Northern Gateway. The Council is now suggesting this out of town Northern Gateway development was inappropriate and that the City Centre now needs to compete with the Council’s own development.

1. The general Masterplan Consultation is highly superficial and leads to biased responses. Questions ask if the public would like nice things without identifying or comparing with the negative impacts. It was be easy but false to conclude that people would like better air quality in one area without telling them they will be no cars permitted and massive congestion and pollution elsewhere as a direct result.

1. Introducing more surface crossings along Southway and at the St Botolphs Roundabout will lead to very substantial increases in traffic congestion and air pollution but this is not mentioned in the documents. As a result I object to these measures as they cannot be fairly judged on the information provided.

1. There is much talk of traffic congestion in the City Centre, although much of it is already pedestrianised or limited to traffic. What is the rationale for further restrictions. The restrictions would come with increased car parking on the periphery it says, but no sites or even general ideas are presented. I strongly object without adequate additional parking being provided.

1. If it is intended to further restrict vehicles into the City Centre, then it would be essential to ensure there is an effective ring route around the City Centre and adequate parking on the periphery. The Masterplan shown clearly restricts both vehicles into the centre and creates congestion on the current routes around the centre, due to the Miriam of additional and enhanced surface crossings proposed at Balkerne Hill, Southway and Sy Botolphs. Together with no clear increase in peripheral parking will strangle the City Centre, result is much reduced footfall for businesses and increased air pollution and other emissions in those areas.
2. Restricting car parking access further to the immediate vicinity of the centre discriminates against those with hidden disabilities who would find it difficult to get a Blue Badge. Maintaining good access to Blue Badge holders is also vital.
3. Many decades of failed planning policy eg preventing housing uses in town centres, encouraging out of town retail, restricting car parking in the centre and of course the fatally flawed business rates system has resulted in the haemorrhaging of retail outlets in the City Centre and in the ghost town syndrome at night, with only bars and clubs and anti social behaviour thriving. The Council is actively developing a new out of town cinema which will inevitably accelerate the demise of the Odeon and the loss of another beneficial City Centre use.
4. Generally the Masterplan document is full of lovely wishes and ideals, but the main focus in practice is to make it ever more difficult for people to visit the City Centre without cycling and the reality is likely to be less
5. As a final point, it seems that public consultations are being done piecemeal with repeated consultations when the results are not in tune with the Councils’ (ECC and CC) wishes. The Lexden Road cycleway, Crouch Street and the Subway closure are all perfect examples of this. The Masterplan effectively presents them as de facto agreements, but only in peripheral terms. Presumably this is a disguise so they can then be presented as having been supported by the ‘agreed Masterplan’ which is based on these decisions having already been made. None of the consultations are sufficiently honest to set out the disadvantages as well as advantages in a way the general public can clearly understand; presumably due the fear the public will reject the idealistic proposals and support practical measures to make their lives better instead.

Comment 1
Whilst I wholly support Colchester City Council’s overarching objectives in redeveloping and decongesting the City Centre, I believe there is a better way of doing this with regard to the Rapid Transit System (RTS) which will avoid adding further congestion to the High Street, allowing this to be fully pedestrianised and will meet all of Colchester City Council objectives in enhancing its rich heritage, tackling the climate emergency and reducing pollution, achieving modal shift and developing the evening and other economy. This would be in having a far wider view and plan regarding the RTS route than is currently suggested which has, even by its authors’ own admission, a limited lifespan of 10 years. This would be for the RTS to use the completed A133-A120 link road, travelling in an anti-clockwise direction around Colchester from
1. the proposed Park and Choose facility on the A133 at the designated site at the entrance to the Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Community site Link Road,
2. through the completed link road,
3. linking the planned A120 Business Park,
4. onto the A120, coming off at the Ipswich Road/A12 junction to go down Ipswich Road, right onto Severalls Lane and linking with Colchester Business Park (though there is a route directly through Colchester Business Park onto Severalls Lane from the A120/A12 junction which may be preferable),
5. then onto the Stadium,
6. and the Northern Gateway Park and Choose, and
7. from there down Via Urbis Way to the General Hospital
8. and North Station,
9. then up Westway (A134) and Balkerne Hill for a stop at the top of Balkerne Hill for access to central Colchester,
10. then down Southway (A134), stopping at St Botolph’s Station,
11. then further down Hythe Hill, Hythe Quay, and left across the river and then railway bridges.
12. At the Tesco roundabout immediately following the railway bridge, taking Elmstead Road leading onto Capon Road and Boundary Road (this is already a dedicated bus only route used by First Buses S1 and 87 routes). This would link up on the Boundary Road with the University of Essex, the Knowledge Gateway, and Colchester Business School before
13. carrying on up Boundary Road and turning left onto the B1028, then the B1027 and up to the A133 and the Park and Choose site once more.
This has the huge advantage of avoiding the High Street entirely, which could be fully pedestrianised, as well as avoiding the railway level crossing gates, and the A133 Clingoe Hill already hugely congested route into Colchester which the currently proposed RTS route would encounter.
This does require that the Link Road is constructed in its entirety within the planned next 2 years, with the Park and Choose facility construction embedded into this construction phase.
Sufficient RTS buses could be utilised on this route to ensure that one departs from each Park and Ride every 10 minutes.
It would link not just the TCB Garden Community but also the other eastern settlements of Wivenhoe, Ardleigh, Elmstead Market, Crockleford Heath and even eastern Colchester to key locations by public transport like Colchester General Hospital and North Station, as well as Colchester Business Park and the new Staine Retail Park, and central Colchester.

Please see map attached.

Comment 2
I would agree completely with regard to removing regular bus routes from the High Street and city centre and creating a central bus station/hub that all buses are routed through, whether in an enhanced form in Osborne Street (already too small) or elsewhere.

Comment 3
I do NOT agree with providing numerous pedestrian crossings on Southway A134 to further obstruct the through flow of traffic around the city centre. I have never as a longstanding resident of Colchester, both as a pedestrian and car and bus user, seen or felt the need to cross Southway on foot, and cannot see any advantages of doing so now. It will not achieve the desired objective of linking up the Colchester beyond Southway to the town centre, but will cause further congestion and pollution of air quality with engines idling as pedestrians cross in 3-4 new locations – and quite unnecessarily.

Our Colchester Business Improvement District (BID) welcomes the opportunity of significant investment in the City Centre and supports the theory of establishing a City Centre Masterplan.

However, it has significant concerns over several proposals presented within the proposal, some
items it would not be able to support such as any mechanism of charging to access the City Centre.

Other concerns are centred around business deliveries/collections and importantly the timings and
phasing of any works proposed. It would not want to see major schemes at both ends of the City Centre at the same time for example. It also considers that the delivery of the RTS is an important driver to the economy of the city centre and cannot afford to be delivered late or out of sequence to other works.

After careful consideration of the Masterplan document, the BID considers that it does nothing to promote or enhance retail operations in the city, in fact it is of the opinion that it will create more barriers to existing or potential retail operators.

The BID would welcome being included at the very early stages of development to understand and influence any implications on businesses and would ask for reassurances that any concerns it raises will be taken into consideration by both the City and County Councils respectively.

The BID has considered fully the Masterplan document but has also commented on the Colchester City Centre Transport Plan as it sees this as an important and integral document to the Masterplan.

The BID will respond to planning applications or traffic regulation orders that affect the delivery of the Masterplan.

Therefore, please find attached the BIDs detailed response to both documents, together with a copy of the Economic Impact Assessment it commissioned, which emphasises and supports the BID’s comments on the absolute necessity that schemes are phased, carried out and completed in a fully controlled concise manner to ensure the economic impact on the City Centre is lessened as much as possible.